An open letter to the St.Pierre’s, Langerwerf’s, and everyone else on this forum and in the herpetile pet trade that is interested in the topic of “Blue” tegus:
Greetings, all. Welcome to my dissertation on the “Blue” tegu. I’m hoping that through this forum and through this letter, a huge confusion will be eleviated and that what is seen as an error (either mine or the breeders) will be brought to light and that all participating and interested parties will be enlightened. It is not my intention to embarrass people, nor to point fingers and call insults. It is my intention to point out scientifically tested and published facts, compare them to specimens of guaranteed “blue” tegus, and come to a conclusion as to the current, scientifically accepted species that “blue” tegus should be classified as.
I have been attacked by novices and experts alike for my supported view. NONE of those experts, however, seem interested in comparing their data to the scientifically accepted and published data to which such indentifications should be adhered to until such a point that enough solid, founded fact can be presented that a new argument needs to formulated, tested, and accepted by the scientific community. Not to say that the private sector has no say or experience to contribute to such a process. Quite the opposite. I can willing quote many circumstances where a herpetocultural hobbyist has greatly contributed to the biological understanding of an organism. However, I believe I can present the unalienable fact (please write if you dispute this next point) that we cannot know where we are heading if we do not know where we are coming from.
Hence, first I will respond to my latest group of messages, and then, for as much clarity as possible in this forum, I will present the scientific facts, the accepted criteria for recognized species so that the breeders and owners of “blues” can compare with their specimens and hopefully, dutifully and truthfully report back on their results.
If, however, you refuse to apply these tested, accepted and utilized scientific characters to your argument, I have to claim you are not empirically testing and demonstrating your point, you are merely arguing from faith. Faith is an illogical concept and cannot be debated rationally. If you wish to present your facts from faith, I will give you a bible or any religious scriptures you so wish so that you can keep preaching from the podium secure in the knowledge you have the good lord/Jehovah/Alah/Buddha/big bug in the sky with a million eyes standing/whichever dietic entity you believe behind you for support, but it won’t convince me or any other disciple of logical science as to your point.
First, to Rick. Kudos, amigo. I have very likely offended you, and in your last email to me (thank you for taking it off this post) you raised some very good facts and talked about truths. You are very correct. What I’m trying to bring to light is very much what you pointed out – the industry is accepting ‘truths’ as ‘facts’. The “truth” is that a majority of the human species on this planet believes in a diety, but it does not make the existence of any diety a “fact”. I commend you on not giving up your point, except for the fact that as I have pushed, please, read the published articles (my points and back-up for my argument) before dismissing them.
To Stella St. Pierre: Thank you very, very much as to the little amount of data you have supplied. Believe it or not, you have provided me with information that makes me think that perhaps there is something to the claim of the “Blues” that you have may indeed represent something distinct. However, this has as yet to be determined by analysis of the facts. Take account, in this matter, that I have stressed the “blues” YOU HAVE. Every “blue” that has been shown to me or that pictures have been presented wherein characteristic details can be clearly ascertained has unerringly been positively identified as T.merianae. You may have something different. My only claim here to that is it seems highly likely that with the popular success of your “blues” lines, others have unscrupulously applied the term to something else that looked like your “blues” but were in fact T.merianae, and that these are what I have encountered. I have never encountered a “blue” tegu that came with signed, stamped and certified creditials to claim it was a genuine St.Pierre “blue”. I still have my doubts as to your claim but I will try to retain an open mind.
You call for me to present an apology to you, Ron, and the Langerwerf’s. I’m rather unclear on that which you wish me to apologize to you about. Please clear up this confusion on my behalf. As I see it, I have said that you, Ron and the Langerwerf’s are not taxonomic specialists, scientists that research taxonomy, or descriptors of scientifically published and accepted species description accounts. A quick search on the Ovid Biosis data base, which tracts all biology publications since around the 1960’s comes up empty with regards to you and Ron. Clearly, my argument is correct, as the acknowledged scientific community would see it. This doesn’t denote, admittedly, that you are ignorant. However, and I quote your own words “I’d have to look, I don’t make a habit of flipping my lizards over and counting their scales.”, you prove YOURSELF not to know much about species identification. I’m not insulting you, I’m pointing out the facts that YOU yourself have admitted to. If you are not counting scales (one of the main criteria in determining species designation) then how exactly are you determining that these are NOT T.merianae and ARE T.teguixin? You need to present data inline with the scientifically published and accepted characters that determine species lineage. Without which, I’m sorry to say, you are merely whistling out your anus. I sincerely, and truly hope this is not the case. As well regarded breeders and considered knowledgeable caretakers of tegu lizards, I would hope you have read the scientific material to merit your respect and back up your arguments. The only hard data you have presented to me or this forum from what I have seen is your claim “when bred together [your “blues” and “Argentines”] the babies don’t hatch, they are dead in shell but fully formed.” This is admittedly very compelling evidence. But unfortunately, not a basis to determine a species. First, if they were completely incompatable, an embryo simply wouldn’t develop. Secondly, others have made the claim to have “hybridized” “blues”, so perhaps yours is a unique case. Third, I have mated guaranteed T.merianae parents and come up with a dead clutch. Are you proposing that this is evidence that although they are both T.merianae by accepted characteristics that because of the failure to produce viable offspring it proves one of them is NOT that species? If you are, then beware, you are also claiming that there are a lot of married couples in the world wherein due to their inability to naturally procreate and produce viable offspring that one member of each marriage is inherently not human. I’m sure they’d take great offense to that, and rightly so. As to your claim that your “blue” do not look like your “Argentines”, that is hardly surprising. Have you read my posts or are you just wishing to be the devil’s advocate? I’ve stated before, many times, and I clearly say so again here and now, T.merianae is HIGHLY POLYMORPHIC, meaning that they are extremely variable in colour and other physical characters. Yes, the ones from around the Argentinian/Brazilian border don’t typically resemble the ones from Bahia state, which don’t typically resemble the ones from Colombia, which don’t typically resemble the ones from the lower Amazonian basin ad nauseum. That which I’ve seen described as “blues” are recognized by scientists as being T.merianae typically found in the northeastern area of Brazil, which gosh and amazingly, happens to be near Colombia. Perhaps, to use my human analogy again, you feel that those people descending from the African continent dark skinned lineage do not qualify as human beings?
Or, are you calling me to apologize for claiming that you are successful, experienced breeders with good knowledge on tegu husbandry? If so, I’m quite surprised, as I do clearly regard you as successful, experienced breeders with good tegu husbandry knowledge. But, you insist. To all readers of this forum, by Stella St. Pierres admonition and self admittance, I hereby sincerely and deeply (although reluctantly) apologize for considering you, Ron and the Langerwerf’s as successful, experienced breeders with good tegu husbandry practices and knowledge. Clearly, by your own request, I am error. Your insistence, not mine.
Now, onto the presentation of published and accepted scientific data on the determination of species of members of the Genus Tupinambis.
Wait, hold on, I need to ask a question here or the entire process will be invalid. To the St. Pierre’s, Langerwerf’s and anyone else willing to throw their two-bits/drakmas/deutschemarks/yen/reais/whatever currency you keep in your pocket/robe/purse/coconut shell/sheep’s skull into this debate, do we all unanimously agree and accept that these peer reviewed published accounts are accepted by everyone as accurate and undeniable characters for defining species lineage? I feel I must point out, that if you do not, than neither can you make any claim to the “blues” being any lineage at all because you would then also refute the characters that identify T.teguixin, and any and all other Tupinambis species.
To heck with it, whether you do or not, here are the published and accepted details, as presented in “A new species of Tupinambis Daudin, 1803 from southeastern Brazil (Squamata, Teiidae)” by P.R. Manzani and A.S. Abe, 2002. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, v.60, n.4,p.295-302. (A side note to the St.Pierre’s and Langerwerf’s, if you wish a signed reprint of this informative and definitive article to which you can thereby read for yourself and use to identify species, please post a request and I’ll have one mailed to you free of charge).
Where the authors have reported varying details from previous sources, I have for simplification of this presentation incorporated the widest extremes in order to broaden any characters and thereby reducing the problem of encountering a specimen that “doesn’t fit”. I also hereby apologize to any formatting irregularities, my Excel program seems to have a glitch I am unable to rectify.
Abbreviations: Tupinambis palustris (T.p.), T.duseni (T.d.), T.longilineus (T.l.), T.merianae (T.m.), T.quadrilineatus (T.q.), T.rufescens (T.r.), and T.teguixin (T.t.), * denotes that data is either unavailable, or so variable as to be unreportable.
Character Code
1 Scales around midbody
2 Transverse dorsal rows
3 Transverse ventral rows
4 Ventrals in a transverse row (total)
5 Femoral pores (per side)
6 Preanal pores (per side)
7 Lamellae under fourth finger (right side)
8 Lamellae under fourth toe (right side)
9 Supratemporals (per side)
10 Loreals (per side)
11 Supraoculars (per side)
12 Supralabials (per side)
13 Infralabials (per side)
14 Max SVL
Character Criteria per species
Characters T.p. T.d. T.l. T.m. T.q. T.r. T.t.
1 112-119 * 93-98 133-178 94-118 * 94-122
2 111-122 77-89 110-121 123-145 113-138 104-134 102-126
3 35-36 32-36 19-33 34-41 20-36 28-34 32-38
4 22-25 30-46 20 27-36 20-28 30-50 21-28
5 9.0-13 9.0-17 11 12.0-20 1.0-16 7.0-8 5.0-8
6 2.0-9.0 5.0-7.0 4 4.0-9 3 * 3.0-6
7 16-18 11.0-14 10.0-19 12.0-21 12.0-17 13-18 13-18
8 26-33 21-24 28-29 26-38 27-31 23-32 29-38
9 3.0-4.0 4.0-5 3 4 4.0-5 * 2.0-4
10 1 2 1 2 1 2 1
11 4 4 4 4 4 * 4
12 7.0-9.0 7.0-9 * 7.0-8 9 * 7.0-9
13 7 (7-9/6-9 ) * 7.0-10 7 * 6.0-8
14 324mm 350-405mm 202-226mm * 254-260mm * 345mm
Furthermore, in this rather large diatribe, I have taken your photos, Stella, to Augusto Shinya Abe, a man that, if you’ll look up, IS an accredited and recognized authority on species identification, especially in the Tupinambis genus, has described numerous reptile species, has more publications out than you, me and anyone else who has contributed to this post in entirety, deals with these animals all across the South American continent in their natural habitat, and has unquestioningly bred and kept more tegus than you or I put together and probably longer than either of us were ever aware the species existed. From what he can see in your photos, what you have he claims wholeheartedly to be Tupinambis merianae. Frankly, as he has the documents and material to provide forth to back up his claim, which I’ve yet to see you or your counterparts produce, I’m afraid I would have to unabashedly take his stance UNTIL you are able to produce and verify irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Lastly, a little side note of my own. Years ago, due to information I had read and garnered from various sources, I had developed the idea that not all T.merianae were born green. But, with time, another scientist I work with came up with the claim that T.merianae are indeed all greenies at hatch. I didn’t believe her. Came down here, and from my experience, I had to admit that it seems she was correct, and I have told her so. Then I showed your photos to Abe, particularly pointing out your hatchling “blues” and their lack of green colouration. It didn’t phase him, he pointed out that that’s typical of the T.merianae in that part of the continent. So maybe I wasn’t wrong after all. I’ll concede your point IF AND ONLY IF you can come up with the data to back up your claim, data that agrees with the recognized accounts. I’m not so stubborn as to refuse to face facts. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the opposition that I have encountered from others on this forum.
So, let’s bury the hatchet, I’ve provided you with recognized characters with which to key your “blues”. Are you up to the task of applying them to clear up this debate?
I have put in a lot of time and effort to this endeavor, do you have the will to meet me on this endeavor?
Just an idea.